Full text: Responsibility of states for damage caused in their territory to the person or property of foreigners

v | 
(a) The acts of the judiciary may, like those of the legislature, involve 
international responsibility, which is derived, according to the weight of 
authority, from the conception of the State as a single entity within the 
international community. Juridical relations created by acts attributed to 
the State are not altered by the fact that the individual agents who commit 
the acts may hold government positions classed under the municipal law as 
legislative, executive, or judicial; they all cover State functions and the 
particular organization and characteristics of each one are immaterial in the 
international sphere. This conclusion is embodied in the doctrine which holds 
that the binding force of court decisions and the competency of the court 
which has rendered same, are material questions only in the local jurisdiction. 
The absolute averment to the effect that court decisions have no binding 
force in international circles does not appear to be legally sound. Such a 
view would be contrary to the fundamental principles of any international 
community based on mutual cooperation. It does not follow from this that 
judicial action has the same significance in the international as well as in the 
national jurisprudence. Of course, international jurisprudence has estab- 
lished that the proceedings of the local judiciary are under certain circum- 
stances subject to revision in accordance with international law, and that this 
might entail responsibility. These proceedings are the ones in which the 
national courts undertake to apply principles of international law. Responsi- 
bility might arise either from erroneously applying the international law, or 
from restrictions imposed thereon by the national jurisprudence. The Costa 
Rica Packet is a leading case on this subject. In the case of the Lotus, among 
others, the question whether or not the proceedings of the national judiciary 
affected the international law was dealt with. In this case the Permanent 
Court did not deal directly with the proceedings of the Turkish courts. As 
regards the facts, however, the responsibility imputed to Turkey was derived 
from the exercise of the local judicial functions. 
Notwithstanding the fact that responsibility arising out of the exercise 
of judicial functions may be unquestionable, the problems derived therefrom

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.